The Friday Flyer
 

When the now DFO joined as GMA she promised a good working relationship. It did not really take all that long to see it was not true. She did not really accomplish anything as GMA and in fact brought us to where we are. Now, as DFO, she is doing the same. We tried to work with her, bringing up the issues and offering solutions to be met with no. I do not believe her, I do not trust her. This all could have been fixed a long time ago. Does anyone still remember the May 31st threat but now she wants to work with us. Oh, and, FOREGT PARIS!

The current GMAs emails are stuff of legend but it's the new side letters, after the TA has been agreed to, that is the sneakiest of all. He too has accomplished nothing. I do not believe nor trust him either.

The new GMF does not have the respect of his pilot's. He was ruthless as Chief Pilot. He used threats and intimidation and fired people. Hell, he fired people in his first few months at GMF just to show his power. Anyone remember the 747 Captain that did not check out in the Bus, was bumped to FO then fired? He was treated with such disdain is was unbelievable. Now, he wants to work with us and we must believe growth will be great. He has done nothing to date to improve ANYTHING. An outdated training and assessment system, out of seniority commands and type changes etc.. are still common place. I really don't trust him.

The GMO talks down to us like we are high school students. His arrogance and condescension are legendary. Does anyone remember reading the letter he wrote to Rod about being a serious issue and he better come see him. Now he wants to clarify the AFTLs. We have asked for some time and were told eat it, that's the way it is but it will be ok going forward, I promise. And how about this force mejure? We get typhoons all the time and he knows it. One typhoon anywhere and force mejure, TA is null and void. The best one is the outage at the airport at the ticket counters. I do not believe or trust him as well.

The relationship was damaged by them not us. Yammer has been used as a tool against us but we are all going to be friends again. Of course now that people are really understanding the language of the TA, we are all seeing their true colors. You'll see their real stripes when it gets voted down. The we love you talk and thank you website will go away and the gnarled teeth will be shown again. They cancelled a fleet party and I am suspect. When is the last time they showed us any good will???

People, please don't fall for this. It's the oldest trick in the book. Vote smart, vote NO!

Spot on Dan. I was going to mention that but figured my post was long enough.

With a vote in favour comes her bonus

The abuser smiles and says "it will be different I promise. Please come home."

The majority will return because they want it to be different next time. Sad but true.

Who has the most to gain from a 'yes' vote? I would guess them, and who has the most to lose from a "no" vote? Again, probably them.

No doubt you only have information on what happens if you vote yes, there should be just as much information available to voters on what happens if you vote No. Im sure 'Cameron' and 'Bo Jo' wished they had studied both sides of the coin. This would require the management and the AOA to be open and honest about their response to their offer being rejected. Please don't hold your breath in anticipation. A 'yammer' question perhaps.

There is no long term benefit to voting 'yes' to a bad offer. The ONLY hope for a proper career at CX is to throw this back at management and tell them 'we are worth better than this'. If this goes through, the champagne corks will be popping on the 9th floor, and any hope of ever seeing a stable, prosperous and enjoyable career will be gone. If you can't vote 'no' for yourselves, then do it on behalf of your future wife/children/oldage. This deal will ensure either you stay in an unhappy and struggling career, or you finally start to see first world work rules and benefits. It's in the hands of each and every one of us. Vote NO

Is the deal better than we have now?
The answer is yes, imho.
Is it as good as we hoped?
No.

Why must we get a slew of new negotiators if we decide to throw it back in their court?
Seems rather silly and inefficient to me.

Seems like the same old voices on here saying no to the vote, very millitant types. I wonder how many among us really feel.

We'll see soon

If you can't see the insidious aspects of this agreement, deliberately inserted into the TA by the company, and can't appreciate the long term implications to a serious career with CX...well, can't really help you. Again, go and look at Delta's new contract and see what a real contract should contain. Ours has NONE of it. So, take a few $$ and sign away any hope of a proper career pay and benefit package. The 8th will be interesting....

Where are we going?
 

If the TA is rejected by anything less than a resounding NO there will be insufficient mandate for major RP revision. If the vote is only 50-1, what minor concessions will the company agree to in their effort to move a few guys to the YES camp?

O-days? 13 year history. Fundamental to how they build today's roster. Do we fight to restrict their use or to remove them (and loose W patters)?

Delta style pay increase? CX is profitable yet Delta's 20% profit margin is huge. No comparison. Great slogan but not reasonable.

3-man Europe? How much does the company want it? 3-man to the rest of the world? Come on?! That requires not just a change to our RP but revision to CAD regulation. Possible in a decade or two.

Seniority only roster system? I want "more" control. Yet who wants to upgrade expecting a painful roster of split duty and night flying? The most senior can sit back, relax and not work because they earned it??? Someone has to do the work. Better that we ALL pull our load equally.

We need to understand exactly what WE as a group want to achieve if or when the TA is voted NO or we will wake up the next day with the British look go what-did-we-just-do?

Read the ARAPA side letter carefully and do the sums:
You need to reach you 15 year limit within the defined period ( how many guys actually hit their 15 year limit in that period)?
You have to be on your existing mortgage for the property you are currently in! and you hit your 15 year limit. ( no new property purchases if you read between the lines!)


Not what we want it to be where the 15 years is changed to 25 years.... Its very conditional and only a very select few will qualify.


Scam Scam Scam.

.....where to start...? I'll make only one point: no, we shouldn't all "pull the load equally". There is a reason for seniority based rostering. Simply put, a 55 year old can't be working the same sort of work load as a 25 year old. The fact you probably don't understand that is undoubtedly down to the fact that you are almost certainly nearer to 25 than 55.

Exactly what I have been trying to say! This proposed RP is so glaringly bad that even with a NO vote it will be an impossible task to get major improvements. All they have to do is etheir make slight improvements to RPs, or increase the HKPA, and you'll have enough of YES votes second time around, but RPs will still be completely sub standard. That's why the NC has made a fatal mistake by relying on the members to ultimately reject the agreement.

The proposed 'deal', negotiated in very good faith by the NC and ratified by the GC is not 'bad'. Reds under beds springs to mind. The same militant few pushing for more war with the Company. Sorry but I don't trust your motives - altruistic? Of course you are not. Now the scare campaign from ourselves - vote NO - doom and gloom, vote YES - doom and gloom. My opinion, read the information provided, make your own decision based on what is best for you and your family. My Dad was a strong supporter of Trade Unions, his mantra was if they offer take it then push for more.

How do you 'push for more' when the TA neuters the AOA, and removes the only effective industrial tool we have? Vote NO.

Shorty,

I would agree with your Dad if it was possible to do just that, but this deal stops you asking for more. Take clause 7 out and you might have some luck. I would still vote NO for all the other !!!!e stuff anyway

Trafalgar. I can assume you are over 55 and having difficulty pulling your weight? Based on your aviation experience you are entitled to the top pay scale and easiest, minimal roster? Get real. Maybe those over 55 need a pay cut commensurate with their productivity. They could make up the difference being a TC and passing the knowledge on to those junior in years.

Pain, you're an idiot.

Trafalgar, you're correct. How do we push for more when the TA neuters the AOA?

Shortly did your dad live and work in HK with its supportive labour laws?

If not, I imagine his views would be different.

My views certainly changed after seeing workers get smoked by the HK law courts.

This TA is about legally pulling the wool over our eyes, because the company may have finally realised the chickens have come to roost or it's out of the playbook how to fool a million dollar moron.

We might actually win a court case for once and the TB is unstoppable, other solutions are long term prohibitively expensive.

The TA as has been said takes the bullets away and hands the gun over to never be loaded again, except by them.

CR. You are correct. However it is unreasonable to expect the company to make significant concessions if the NO vote is tight. Do not promise what the Union can not deliver.

W patterns may go away someday in the future. BUT I like my 777 roster. The roster is stable, I have my W's, build up hours quickly and enjoy my blocks of time off. Vote for a lower quality of life now over the threat of what might occur some time in the future?

If the vote is NO then the NC must return to the negotiations with our list of show stoppers. The Union is guessing what the membership's priorities are today and the Company knows it! The Union needs to question the membership today, not 2 years ago. The questions asked must be specific, not open-ended generalisations which may be interpreted any way the GC desires. (Do you want more control over your roster? YES does not equate to a mandate for a USA style seniority based system.)

Two things are required. The GC must know and understand the desires and priorities of the membership. And the GC must inform the membership so they can know and understand the benefits of each issue and the downside cost. It is much better to knowingly sacrifice for the collective good than to feel thrown under the bus for someone else's benefit.

Historically the union was better at throwing one group under the bus to help a different group. The company probably actively worked to create this situation. Regardless,the GC is left holding the bag.

Well thats a bit self centred, I think the B74 and Bus crowd might disagree!! You see its not all about YOU!
Its thanks to muppets like you that we are in this position right now.

Self Centered
 

Asianeagle. You are right. My perspective is self centered. Just like yours is centered about you.

The 777 roster was crap and now it is good. Things change. I have no desire to fly a Airbus or freighter roster because they are painful. How does this surprise you?

My point: we have done a poor job explaining why throwing group Y under the bus (sacrificing for the greater good) is good for all of us?!

In the latest instalment of The Friday Flyer (8Jul16):

The DFO indicates the company will not immediately talk to the HKAOA, but instead continue to manage the status quo. So much for good faith bargaining and forging ahead with a new positive relationship.

They didn't get what they wanted first time round so throw the toys out of the cot! Surprise, surprise!

Stand by for CX plan A: intimidation and division. Hoo hum!

Pain-

Your 777 roster gives you greater quality of life and more money than your colleagues on the bus and jumbo, yet you advocate we ALL need to be treated well. Certainly you realize the hypocrisy in your position. There is a radical inequity among the fleets that requires change. Seniority may not be the best, but the company lacks the IT to apply any other "fair" system.

How is seniority "not the best"?

What is the better, "fair" alternative?

Seniority means lots of excess training courses triggered when one person retired off the "senior" fleet.

Also how do you decide what is the senior fleet? Pay is the same. Some people may prefer one fleet over another. Not everyone wants the same fleet. Fast forward a few years from now when the 777 has a lot more regional and the Airbus has a lot more longhaul. Which is the senior fleet then?

While CC is marginally effective and TB is where we get our negotiating power. It should come as no surprise the company wants to reduce the threat. The NC made clear the company's requirement was removing the TB. Hence section 7.1.

The company wants an agreement but I do not expect them to be in a hurry. They will devise a program whose objective will be to reduce the effectiveness of the TB. It will be expensive and of limited effectiveness. But over time the impact of our TB will be reduced and accordingly our negotiating position will be reduced.

The important thing is we rejected the flawed TA. What they choose to do now will be more expensive and create more issues than having properly negotiated a descent TA in the first place. We don't need to do anything now. It's all up to them and what they can get from the regulators with respect to bending rules. It's up to the AOA to detail its objection to the CAD that the dispensations are only a result of the company un willing to address issues in their entirety and that their half measures only resulted in approximately half the votes for the TA. If they had have been more encompassing of the issues in the first place. The TA would have been ratified and the need for dispensations and the like would be unnecessary.

Like mentioned in another topic, one of the first things they are doing is taking steps to "re"qualify simulator instructors that had previously been STC's to allow active STC's more time for "training duties".
It will be very interesting to see which of the "ex" STC's will raise their hand and volunteer to accept this deal (i.e. take an STC position away from an active flight crew member). Perhaps someone on this board can come up with a name for a person who would willingly do this?

It has already been done me old fruit. Even the SS is returning to make our lives betterer.